Guest v Guest – Where are we now?
On 19 October 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its much-anticipated judgment in the landmark case of Guest v Guest, a classic proprietary estoppel claim. Since then, many cases have cited this authoritative Judgment but has this case provided any clarity or has it now muddied the waters?
National law firm Clarke Willmott LLP represented Andrew Guest at the High Court trial, the Court of Appeal hearing and the Supreme Court appeal. Here the team look back at the case and others that have been heard since.
Background
Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27 concerned the ownership of a working dairy farm, known as Tump Farm, that had been owned and run by the Guest family for several years.
David Guest and his wife, Josephine Guest had two sons, Andrew and Ross and one daughter.
When the relationship between Andrew and his parents broke down in 2015, the farming business partnership was dissolved and Andrew’s parents executed new wills which disinherited Andrew. Andrew and his family were also served notice to vacate their farm cottage.
The High Court trial was brought by Andrew based on the equitable remedy of proprietary estoppel, who relied upon assurances by his parents that he would inherit a share of the family farm and farming business, which he worked on, for less than minimum wage, for 32 years since the age of 16.
As a brief summary, to succeed in a claim based on proprietary estoppel, there needs to have been:
- a promise, assurance or representation made by the promisor to the promisee; and
- the claimant relied on that promise to their detriment.
The Guest v Guest case was ultimately dealt with by the Supreme Court to deal with issue of remedy. It was determined that the correct approach to framing a remedy is based on Andrew’s expectation of inheritance rather than the detriment-based approach put forward by his parents.
Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled that Andrew was entitled to his inheritance because his parents had repudiated on their promise that one day Andrew would inherit a share of the farm. The Supreme Court confirmed that the aim of the proprietary estoppel is to remedy the unconscionable conduct of the promisor by satisfying the expectation of the promise who had relied on that assurance to his/her detriment.
The Supreme Court rejected the theory that the remedy for proprietary estoppel cases is to compensate the detriment suffered by the claimant using a formulaic calculation. The Supreme Court was grappling with the difficult question of how to compensate someone for giving up the whole of their working life to the family business.
What has happened since Guest v Guest?
Since the Judgment from the Supreme Court, many proprietary estoppel claims have continued to reach the High Court, and the case has been consistently cited in subsequent cases.
In Spencer v Spencer [2023] EWHC 2050 (Ch), in August 2023, the High Court addressed the question of proprietary estoppel in light of Guest v Guest. The facts were typical of a proprietary estoppel claim in a farming family and the High Court found that the son’s claim against his father’s estate was successful. Mr Justice Rajah commented:
“if an equity has arisen then the Court must decide how it should be satisfied. Earlier authorities must now be read in light of the judgment of Lord Briggs in Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27 with whom Ladies Arden and Rose agreed”.
The same was said in High Court case of Cleave v Cleave [2024] EWHC 2492 (Ch) in September 2024 which concerned a proprietary estoppel claim relating to a farm in Devon. The claimant was successful in his claim against his mother.
Once again in November 2024, Judgment in Armstrong v Armstrong [2024] EWHC 2989 (Ch) was handed down in favour of the claimant which again cited Lord Briggs’ framework in Guest v Guest.
When considering detriment in Spencer v Spencer, it was recognised that the non-financial detriment incurred by a claim who has committed his working life to a farm is a particularly cogent factor to take into account.
In June 2024, the Court of Appeal further cemented this long-established principle in the case of Winter v Winter [2024] EWCA Civ 699. The Court of Appeal followed the well-established principle (from Gillett v Holt, Suggitt v Suggitt, Habberfield v Habberfield and Spencer v Spencer) that where one devotes their life to something, the Court can recognise detriment even if the claimant has not shown a different path would have been more beneficial.
Guest v Guest has certainly shaped the way Courts will consider proprietary estoppel claims, but it has not provided absolute clarity for parties at the outset of a claim. Whilst the judgment has established some guidance on the issue of remedy, expertise is still needed to assess the various factors in determining the likely outcome and the overall question of conscionability.
How can we help?
The team at Clarke Willmott are uniquely placed to advise on the nuances of the judicial approach and to guide parties through litigation or help to achieve resolution at the earliest possible point.
For further guidance and advice relating to any contentious agricultural issues, please contact a member of the team below.
Posted: